DETERMINING THE PRONUNCIATION PROBLEMS OF

KINARAY-A SPEAKERS LEARNING ENGLISH

THROUGH CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS

A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Graduate School

Central Philippine University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in English

Cerdy J. Arañ ador

April 1977
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The complex problem of what is to be the language

of the home, the national language, the official language,

and the language of instruction makes it difficult for the

educational system of the Philippines to arrive at simple

decisions concerning language instruction and language

learning.

This complexity is occasioned by the fact that the

Philippines is multiple-tongued, with 81 languages and

dialects (66 of which are native and 15 are foreign)1 . The

fact that in some areas two or more dialects are spoken

interchangeably by the same speakers makes this already

complex situation staggering. Even if this evaluation of

the situation seems exaggerated because many of these

dialects are mutually intelligible and, except for the

eight principal languages, many varieties are each spoken

by a small percentage of the population, the lack of success

in many of our language teaching and learning programs is

of such a magnitude that it behooves us to find out what

and how this multiplicity contributes to our difficulties.

1
Philippines (Republic) National Economic and
Development Authority, 1975 Philippine Yearbook (Manila:
1976), p. 117.
 2

Into this babelization or confounding of speech is

thrown the imperative need for the Philippines to have a

common tongue in its quest for nationhood. It was thought

that this need was met by a constitutional provision. But

even with the legislation of the Tagalog-based Pilipino

into becoming the national language, the quest is far from

over since the status of Tagalog is like that of a hated

foreign language among non-Tagalog speakers whose attach­

ment to regionalism and whose pride in their respective

dialects or vernaculars are quite strong. To some

Filipinos, it seems that nationalism does not necessarily

mean having a national language based on one of the existing

Philippine dialects, but simply having a language through

which one can relate to one's countrymen. It is felt that

the "proper closing to the still open national-language

question should be on the basis of facts more than just on

sentiments."2

For the Filipinos, the tasks of choosing an indige­

nous common tongue and of learning to use it have become

as complicated as learning a foreign one.

Spanish, in spite of the length of Spanish rule in

the Philippines, its prestige, and its being taught in

2Eliza U. Griño, "The Dialects of Panay and the

Implications of the Manner of Their Spread," Report of a
Research Under the Sponsorship of the Ford Foundation
(Iloilo C i t y : Central Philippine University, October 31,
1974). p . 1.
 3
classes, has met with resistance. Its cultural value seems

to be the only reason now left for its inclusion in our

curriculum. Its more lasting impact is assured by the

hundreds of Spanish words that have entered into many

Philippine dialects. It has already lost, however, its

chance of becoming the common language of the Filipinos.

It is wishful thinking to say that the similarity

among all the major Philippine dialects could be a basis for

a one-dialect-based national language, since it is virtually

impossible for these dialects to grow into one. Historical

linguistics has shown that within sharply-defined political

boundaries, dialects do not coalesce.3 Even a jargon, such

as pidgin or creole, usually soon dies out without ever

becoming the native language of any group of speakers. In

some cases, a native language is given up in favor of a

jargon. The speech becomes a creolized language which has

the "status of an inferior dialect of the master’s speech

and is subject to constant levelling-out and improvement

in the direction"4 of the mother speech. It is, therefore,

3
Clifford H. Prator, Jr., Language Teaching in the
Philippines (Manila: United States Educational Foundation
in the Philippines, 1950), p.4.
4Leonard Bloomfield, Language (New Yor k : Henry
Holt and Company, 1958) p. 474.
 4

the most influential vernacular that gradually imposes

itself as a common tongue. On the other hand, past

experiences have made us realize that the vernacular

languages "collectively cannot make for national unity even

under a single strong political system."5

One of the negative results of foreign-language

learning in the Philippines, covert though this result may

be, is the fact that, in our honest desire to learn another

language, we have unconsciously developed some kind of an

inferiority complex regarding our own languages and dialects.

Understandably perhaps, we feel that our dialects cannot

by themselves help us cope with communications necessary in

the modern world. We have failed to realize the intrinsic

value of developing to the fullest the potentials of these

dialects in order to enable us to express ourselves in an

unborrowed language. It cannot be denied that much of what

we call "our own" are either borrowings or adaptations from

the languages of other countries. What is uniquely Filipino

and which we have only started to define and delimit is still

blurred to many of us. One of the reasons for this is still

the little importance and attention we are giving to the

local languages in which most of what we can call truly

Filipino find expression.

5Leopoldo Y. Y abes, "English as Official Language

and M edium of Instruction," The Philippine Journal of
Education. 2:(5) 263, November, 1972.
 5
It is good to know that at last attempts are being

made to study the dialects of the Philippines on a wider

scale. When a language has been recorded, its system can

be scientifically described, and its differences from and

similarities with another language can be identified more

definitely. More specifically, with the Filipinos still

in search of a national language, findings from such studies

can provide justification for the choice of a local dialect

to serve as base of the national language. Furthermore,

concerning the implementation of bilingual education, accord­

ing to the Prator recommendation, implications can be obtained

from a scientific study of the "basic differences between

the sound systems of English and the various Philippine dia­

lects, and of the exact difficulties Filipino children of

different linguistic regions have in pronouncing English."6

The controversy arising from the use of English as

a medium of instruction and official language of government

was carried to no less than the assemblage of Filipino

intellectuals and leaders convened for the purpose of chang­

ing the 1935 Philippine Constitution, which was labelled

c o l o n i a l because it was a creation of an act of the United

States Congress. It will be recalled that the question of

what language to use in the proceedings and in the formula­

tion of the new constitution paralyzed the convention for

days.

6
Prator, op. cit ., p. 9 3 .
 6

Ironically, the language which the 1971 Constitu­

tional Convention was expected to eliminate was the very

language that prevailed. This decision was one of the

most important final decisions made by the Convention.

Thus, paragraph 1, section 3 , Article XV of the new

Philippine Constitution states:

This constitution shall be officially promulgated

in English and translated into all the native lan­
guages or dialects spoken by over fifty thousand
people and into Spanish and Arabic. In case of con­
flict, the English text shall prevail.

Paragraph 3, section 3 , Article XV further states:

"Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino7

shall be the official languages."

The decisions are significant because they were

arrived at despite the nationalistic atmosphere that had

pervaded the convention, and after seventy-five years of

struggle to be independent8, and despite the earnest

yearnings of the Filipinos to finally establish their

national identity.

7
The term Pilipino should be distinguished from
Filipino which is the proposed national language pursuant
to the provision of paragraph 2, section 3 , Article XV of
the New Philippine Constitution.
8
This reckoning is based on the dates of the first
declaration of independence from Spain which was on June
12, 1898 and of the approval of the New Philippine Consti­
tution on January 17 , 1973.
 7

This likewise confirmed once and for all the role

of English as a unifying influence in the life of a people

of varied ethno-linguistic groupings and as the more

efficient instrument of national government and communica­

tion, and medium of academic disciplines, literature,

business, science and technology.

This is not saying, however, that there is no need

to improve existing language programs, particularly in the

teaching of English, in the Philippines. Since English is

here to stay for a long time yet, better learning and teach­

ing programs are imperative. And since Philippine dialects

are the media of community and home life, language programs

such as the teaching of English must necessarily be based

on some contrastive analysis of the Philippine dialect in

contact with the foreign language under study.

At this juncture, it is only proper to introduce

Kinaray-a which is the dialect involved in this study.

Kinaray-a is one of the three dialect variants of

Panayan Bisayan, the two others being Aklanon and Hiligay-

non,9 the latter being spoken by 10.2 percent of the

9
Griño, loc. cit.
 8

Philippine population.1
0 Panayan Bisayan, like the other

major Philippine languages, belongs to the great Malayo-

Polynesian family of languages.1

1

A study by Griño1
2 shows this classification of

Kinaray-a: Deep K inaraya13 (which is of three subtypes;

namely, Deep Antique Kinaraya-a, Deep Aklan Kinaray-a, and

Deep Iloilo Kinaray-a (the last with two sub-subtypes,

Central Deep Iloilo Kinaray-a and Coastal Deep Iloilo

Kinaray-a), Dumalagnon, Lemerinhon, Central Iloilio Kina-

ray- a, Pototanon, and East Coast of Iloilo Kinaray-a. The

Kinaraya-a in this study belongs to the Central Iloilo

type.

10Philippine (Republic) National Census and Sta­

tistics Office, 1970 Census of Population and Housing;
National Summary, II (Manila: 1971) p. XXII.

11
Macario B. Ruiz, "Weighting and Sequencing
English Tense-Aspect Modifications for Hiligaynon Speakers"
(unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1963), P . 15 .

12
Griño , loc. cit.

13
A variant term for Kinaray-a and thought to be
the native term.
 9
This typing is based, on the occurrence of an alter­

nation between certain sound features of Kinaray-a and

Hiligaynon. A region that uses / r / where others would

use / 1 / or / / / was considered Kinaray-a territory.

If this peculiar use of / r / is accompanied with the use

of the tense, unrounded back vowel / u /, the speech was

considered of the "deep" type. Other subtypes were iden­

tified by the occurrence of any one of these two features.

A Hiligaynon territory is one where / 1 / instead of / r /

or / / / is used. Kinaray-a has also one more vowel than

Hiligaynon. This is the tense unrounded back vowel / u /

which is also called pepet vowel in linguistic literature.

Because of improved facilities of communication

and travel, Hiligaynon and Kinaray-a are coming into more

and more contact and the differences between the two dia­

lects do not anymore constitute a major hindrance to

mutual intelligibility. Furthermore, as diown by the Griño

study, the use of certain Hiligaynon segments in a typical­

ly Kinaray-a word is evidence that Hiligaynon is becoming

more and more the dominant dialect. This is shown, for

loss of / u / in many characterizing words in the typical-

1y Kinaray-a vocabulary of Pototan, Iloilo. This

dominance is further confirmed by a kind of an "

inter-

dialectal bias " .

14
Griñ o, ibid., p. 27.
 10

Some people in the city often refer to Kinaray-a as the

language of the mountain people, calling it Binukidnon.
In fact, the intonation of Kinaray-a is often the source

of laughter and delight, and, not too rarely, of prejudice

among non-Kinaray-a speakers. On the other hand, Kinaray-a
speakers would often tease a townmate who, after a short
stay in the city, is caught using a Hiligaynon word in
place of his own, by making such remarks ass "Sang adlaw
lang sa syudad, nagsina don." ^

The incident cited above seems to show that speakers

of Kinaray-a are just as proud of their dialect as the
Hiligaynon speakers are of their own. And this is the
greater reason for the concern about the impact of the dia­
lect on English learning.

I. THE PROBLEM

a. Statement of the problem. The study hopes to

answer the following questions and point out some pedagogi­

cal implications of the results of the comparisons
1. What are the differences and similarities
between the Kinaray-a and the English sound systems?

15
sina is Hiligaynon for that which is kara or karan
in Kinaray-a. Roughly, this remark means that the speaker
has taken on some affectations after a short stay in the
city by using the Hiligaynon word for that instead of the
native word.
 11

2. How will knowledge of contrastive analysis

help a teacher of English solve pronunciation problems of

a Kinaray- a speaker learning English?

3. What are the expected pronunciation problems

of Kinaray- a speaker learning English?

4. How have these differences and similarities

actually hindered or helped the Kinaray- a speaker learning

English?

b. Scop e and limitations of the study. This study

involved only the Kinaray-a spoken in Central Iloilo, the

informants being natives of Tina, Badiangan, Iloilo.

Because the grammatical structure of Kinaray-a and Hiligay-

non are very highly similar, only their sound systems will

be covered by the study. Intonation, which is supraseg-

mental feature of the dialect, was likewise excluded. This

study then included only the segmental phonemes and their

phonetic features, the accentual system, and syllable

structure.